183 Cal.App.4th 1031 (2010)
FRANCISCO GARCIA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,v.WORLD SAVINGS, FSB, Defendant and Respondent.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.
April 9, 2010.1034*1034 Creed & Elliott, Joseph W. Creed and Lisa R. Elliott for Plaintiffs andAppellants.Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell &Trytten, Robin C. Campbell, Mark T.Flewelling and Robert A. Bailey for Defendant and Respondent.
MANELLA, J.Appellants Francisco and Maria Elena
brought suit against their lender,respondent
for wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unfair business practices.
The trial courtgranted respondent's motion for summary judgment, concluding that theforeclosure was valid, that the breach of contract claim was unsupported byconsideration, that the promise allegedly made was insufficiently specific tosupport promissory estoppel and that the unfair business practices claim hadno basis. We reverse with respect to the claim for promissory estoppel, butotherwise affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDA.
Most of the essential facts were not disputed for purposes of summary judgment. In September 2004, appellants purchased a residential property inArtesia using funds obtained from respondent.
The property was subject to a1035*1035 deed of trust. Between October 2006 and August 2007, appellantsfailed to make payments on the loan.
In January 2007, respondent sentappellants a notice of default. In May 2007, respondent sent appellants anotice of trustee's sale to take place June 21, 2007, later continued byrespondent to July 20, 2007.In July 2007, respondent postponed the trustee's sale to August 20, 2007.
That same month, appellants retained Cal Ravana, a mortgage broker, toobtain funds to cure the default by re-financing other property owned byappellants. In mid-August, Ravana spoke with Mike Lara, one of the managersof respondent's foreclosure department, and informed him that appellantshad obtained a written conditional loan approval. Ravana faxed the approvalto Lara and asked for another postponement. Lara agreed to postpone thesale to August 29.
Respondent provided Ravana a reinstatement quote of $26,596.37, the amount which if paid by August 29, would cure the default onthe loan.On August 27, Ravana called Lara to ask for an extension of time until the firstweek of September. According to Ravana, Lara stated that he would postponethe sale until August 30 and "see where [they] were at after that." WhenRavana asked what would happen if appellants' new loan did not close by the30th, Lara responded that the property "won't go to sale because I have thefinal say-so and as long as I know that you could close it the first week of